Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] Heat. [music] Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] Heat. [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music]

Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [music]

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of adjustments meeting for December 4th, 2025. It is 604 p.m. I would like to call this meeting to order. Our first order of business is we do have a quorum of four members right now and our first order of business is to have approval of minutes from the November 6 meeting of 2025. Do we have a motion on the floor to approve the for the minutes of November? Make a motion to approve the minutes from CBA meeting November 6, 2025.

Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second.

It's been motioned and second. Any discussion? No discussion. All in favor, raise your hand. All oppose, raise your hand. Motion carries four to zero. I would like to bring up the fact that we only have four um members for a quorum. And for as the applicant, if you would like to move forward, you can knowing that for your decision, all four members will constitute approval versus if one of the members do not constitute approval, then it would be totally denied. So this is the point where I guess you have the opportunity. If you would like to reschedu, you can. Or you would like to move forward, we can do so. And I'm asking for the VAZ 2025 0488 um agenda. Okay. So, we would like to move forward with the with our regular agenda. We'd like to have a consideration and possible action for VAZ 20225-0488 special exception for development to occur on a property with an existing nonconformities. This is a request by ABC Awning Company applicant on behalf of Air Gas USA LLC owner for approval of a special exception as permitted by the unified development code ordinance number 2000-T to allow for development to occur on a property with existing nonconformities. This has a general location of 4344 Main Street in Periland, Texas. We have

a staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening. My name is Patrick Bower and I'll be presenting the staff report tonight. So, as mentioned, the special exception request is to allow for development or improvements to occur on a property with existing nonconformities. And specifically, the nonconformities pertain to the uh front setback of the existing northern building along the main street frontage, the side setback for the buildings along the northern property line, and the setback of the existing parking along Main Street. and the applicant is proposing a 320 foot uh canopy for an existing equipment area which will be shown on the site plan. Today staff has not received any comments in support or against the request. So, kind of looking at an aerial view in the zoning, the subject properties in the heavy industrial zoning district, and it's predominantly that same kind of dark purple, heavy industrial with some uh light industrial M1, which is the lighter purple across Main Street. And it's a predominantly undeveloped land around it with some warehouse to the north uh and across to the east. Little history on the property was annexed in the city in 1983. It was first developed in 1991 and then additional improvements uh were occurred on the property between 2018 and 2020 and then it was platted in 2013 as the minor plat of air specialty gas. So here we get a look at the site plan. The lefth hand image is the entire site um and you'll see the actual location is more in the middle. So not along the frontage but in the middle and that's the location of that proposed canopy. And so going through those existing non-conformities, there will be three slides. And so this first one focuses on the front setback requirement. And so within the uh heavy industrial M2 zoning district, there's a required 35 foot front setback. And you'll notice um by the red dash line that represents that 35 foot front setback. And there's a portion, maybe a little tough to see on a little screen, but this yellow portion is the portion of the building that is within that 35 foot front setback. that

would be considered an existing nonconformity. And then the next non-conformity pertains to that side setback and specifically for the northern buildings. And so you'll see there's the 25 foot setback which is what the N2 zoning district requires. And there's approximately it's it's minimal but it's approximately 24.9 ft off of the property line. So about 0.1 ft of the building actually extends into that 25 foot set back. kind of see by the kind of a yellow sliver. Um those are those areas that actually extend into the 25 foot setback. And my bad, it says front setback. It should be side setback on the um on the slide. And then lastly, the last existing non-conformity relates to the parking setback along Main Street. And so Main Street is a corridor overlay district and is required to have a 30foot parking setback. This parking lot was built before that corridor overlay district requirement was put in place. And so you'll notice that red dash line 30 foot parking setback and then the yellow portion is the parking area and the drive aisle that's within that 30-foot setback. And so looking at the criteria for approval of a special exception, staff found that the requests met criterion four for approval of a special exception. And it should also be noted that if the site were to come into compliance with the required front setback, side setback, and the parking setback, then any portion of the existing buildings or parking within those setbacks would need to be demolished, which may impose a hardship on the property. And so therefore, staff recommends approval of the special exception request to allow for development to occur on a property with existing nonconformities. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you, sir. You have an applicant presentation. Uh, no applicant presentation. Any persons wishing to speak for against proposal? Okay, we like to move into staff and commission and applicant discussion. Any questions to the applicant or to the staff uh board?

Just a quick question if I could from staff. Um, one of the previous slides said there had been multiple occasions where changes had been made. I I don't know what those were, but when those changes were made previously, is that that's what's part of this pre-existing that's been approved by the by the city.

Yeah. So, I'll say the the existing buildings were built the and I'm I'm guessing you're talking about the 2018 2020. So, that 2018 2020 was actually this kind of back area and you kind of see it on this image, there's a storage area. If you look through aerials, it was actually the storage area that was added. That's not the existing nonconformity. It was prior to that because if if it was built at 2018 2020, we would have required it to meet the code requirements at that time. It's more of the ones that were done before then. So those 2018 2020 that was more of storage. None of the buildings that are have to do with the existing non-conformities or parking, those weren't completed in 2018 to 2020. So they didn't change the footprint between 2018 and 2020

of the buildings. Yeah. Just the this outdoor storage area which is kind of se that's separate from the buildings on the property. So we're we're asked to approve change so that the existing building would be exactly on the uh setback requirements. Is that true? Roughly. Yeah. If you look at the survey, and it's a little small on here, but it's 24.9. They're making requests that they allow to be able to build the canopy and the building stay in the exact same spot that they're sitting today, as well as the the parking stay in the exact same spot that it's in today. That's what the request is for. Thank you. That's all I have.

Any other questions or comments from the board to the staff or applicant? Okay. We'd like to move into consideration and possible action. Uh Jerry, would you read the motion? I make a motion to approve VAZ 20225-0488 as presented. It's been motioned. Is there a second?

It's been motioned and second. Any discussion? All in favor raise your hand. All oppose raise your hand. Motion carries four to zero. [clears throat] And I would like to also make the same um consideration to the next applicant about your VAZ 20225-0530. Just to let you know that we have four board members. Would you like to move forward or would you like to reschedule? Yes, please go to the podium and would you state your name and address for me, sir?

Yeah, my name is Jeff Boute, the applicant with EH Engineering, 100011 Meadow Glenn Lane in Houston, Texas. Uh my question is from a process standpoint if we have dis if we open the item and have discussion does the board have the option to defer to a next meeting or do they need to take full action tonight? As a board we do have an option to vote defer or deny. Yes. Okay. Just wanted to make sure in case anything major came up that would give someone a pause for you know reason to vote against it we could consider to defer. I was wondering as the applicant if I could ask during the proceedings to defer and then come back with more information next time.

Um as an applicant, yes, you do have the option to ask. Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. You do have that. Then I'm okay with proceeding now. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, that's I want to verify that that's legal, though. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. you as a board can choose to table it and and come back at a later date if you feel that's appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Um therefore, we'd like to move into our next um item on the agenda for consideration and possible action VAZ 2025-0530. This is a special special exception to plat a property with existing nonconformities. This is a request by Jeffrey Boute, EHR Engineering applicant on behalf of BHVA [snorts] Real Estate Holdings LLC and 14739 Almeter Road LLC owner for approval of a special exception as permitted by the Unified Development Code ordinance number 2000-T to plat a property with existing nonconformities. This has a general location of 322 Riley Road, Hairland, Texas. Staff report.

Thank you, chair.

So, as mentioned, the request is for a special exception to allow for a property with existing non-conformities to be platted and specifically the non-conformities pertain to the front yard setback uh for the existing buildings along Riley Road and the uh setback for the ride ofway along the east side of the property. Today staff has not received any comments in support or against the request. So here we get a look at the subject property. It's at the corner of Riley Road and Alita School Road. Um it's kind of a mixture of mostly light industrial zoning and then you'll notice some kind of dark navy. That's our Spectrum 5 district which is a lower Kirby kind of that area um specific zoning. Um it's got a mixture of light industrial around as well as Spectrum 5. And then to the west is uh the ETJ. So the property was originally developed um with the buildings in 1974 with additional structures being built in 1976, 2005, and 2006. And then it was actually annexed into the city in 2005. And the southern portion of the land was platted as a part of the IT lodging solution headquarters in 2022. And then the northern portion is currently not platted. That's why they're platting the property now to make it all one as shown on this image. And so here we get a look at the the two buildings that are the subject of the uh non-conformities. I'll be going through them a little closer. So kind of zoomed out here, but we'll be zooming in a little closer. Um but I would like to note um this slide does also show portions of the buildings that'll actually after the rideway dedication will be within the proposed rideway for the future Riley Road as well as the undeveloped road on the east side. And I'd like to note that special exception is not for those portions of the building within the ride ofway. It's only for those areas that are within private property where you're encroaching on a setback. that would be something that would either have to be handled through a maybe a consent to

encroach or could be something at the time of when the road actually is built that it gets handled through the city. Um whether that be removing it, compensating, whatever that may be, that's not a part of this process tonight. That's just for those areas that are in the setback specifically. And so looking at those existing non-conformities, the first non-conformity pertains to that front setback requirement for the light industrial M1 zoning district. And the requirement is that a 35- ft front setback is required. And so this kind of gray area here represents those areas of the building in between the new property line and the 35 foot front setback that are within uh that setback. And looking at the next one, um, this one actually notes it as a side setback, but it's actually this maybe it's a slight correction on our in that this would actually be considered a front setback because even though it's an undevelop road, it'll still be a ride of way at some point. So you'd still treat it as a frontage. And so this one actually has two portions that are within setbacks. Kind of along Riley Road, there's a small portion which you'll see that's gray that's within that 35 foot front setback. And then along here past the black line, this is the portion of the building that is within the 35 foot foot front setback for the eastern property line. And so these would be those non-conforming portions of the building. And so looking at the approval criteria for a special exception, staff found that the request met criterion 4. And uh it should be noted that if the site were to come into compliance with those required setbacks, uh then any portion of the existing buildings, whether it be the one along Riley or the one along um that undeveloped road, um would be required to be demolished, which may impose a hardship on the property. So therefore, staff recommends approval of the special exception requests to

allow for a property with existing nonconformities to be platted. And that concludes staff's report. Thank you sir. Do we have an applicant presentation? Thank you sir. No applicant presentation. We would like to move into persons wishing to speak for or against proposal. No persons wishing to speak for or against. We would like to move into staff commission and applicant discussion. Any questions or comments from the board to the staff or applicant? Question to staff. Were are the existing structures or any part of the existing structures built to where they are today? Any part of the footprint in other words that was built after this land was the unified what is it called? Unified building code.

Yeah. annexed or because it matters about the annexation of the property. So these structures were built on the property prior to that 2005 annexation. So they would have been subject to county requirements or they would have been permitting through the county and our consideration tonight you say does or does not include the property on the I guess that's the east side of the building where it says it shows the rightway encroachment.

Yes. Yeah. So, ours is not because we're only focusing on setbacks and we can only focus on the the what's within those setback areas. The special exception can't be granted to say, "Hey, you can continue to have it within the right of way." That's a separate uh process. Um, and legally, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but that's the special exception has been for private property boundaries and meeting the UDC requirements for the setbacks and whatnot. So when we develop forgot what the name of the road is the undeveloped road there when that happens is is anything then at that point when they've got the rightway all measured and surveyed is any part of that we're going to have to come back and have another exception granted or approved or

so I say I'd say first off the exception is needed at this time because they're looking to plat the property or if they look to develop in the future and the building doesn't let's say the building still doesn't meet that's when you would that's when it's required to get a special exception when it comes to actually the ride ofway being developed that's more of and whether or not for lack of better whether or not something gets shaved off or if it where that actually they're able to keep the building that'll be a separate process but at that point you're not actually legal, correct me if I'm wrong, you're not developing at that point. You're demolishing something and it's being worked out with the city as that roadway gets developed, but that's a special exception can only occur if you have a you're platting or you're actually developing the lot. If they just left it as is and we're doing anything, that's you wouldn't need a special exception for that.

Okay, that's all I had. Any other questions or comments from the board to the staff or applicant? Okay, we like to move into consideration and possible action. Don, would you read the motion once it's placed on the screen? Make a motion to approve variance application VAC 025-05. It's been motioned. Is there a second? I'll second. It's

been motioned and second. Any discussion? All in favor raise your hand. All oppose raise your hand. Motion carries 4 to zero and we are adjourned at 6:24 p.m. for the zoning board of adjusters meeting for December 2025.